Skip to content

RUBY Coil RBY2C0430-BRecalls & reported problems

Penumbra, Inc. · Ruby Standard, 4x30 · Class 2

All models of RUBY Coil (90)

Data updated Oct 16, 2026 from official FDA records · Editorial policy

Adverse event reports
3
Deaths reported
0
Injuries reported
0
Recalls naming it
0

Summary

The FDA's MAUDE database contains 3 adverse event reports that list this exact device (DI 00814548018607), received between Jul 10, 2020 and Nov 11, 2024 — classified as 3 malfunctions.

The most frequently reported specific device problem is “Difficult or Delayed Separation” (1 report).

Reports come from manufacturers, hospitals and patients and are not verified by the FDA. A report does not prove the device caused the event, and counts can't be used to compare devices or estimate failure rates. What reports can and can't tell you · How this data works · Data updated Oct 16, 2026.

Reports received per month

Nov 2023: 0 reportsDec 2023: 0 reportsJan 2024: 0 reportsFeb 2024: 0 reportsMar 2024: 0 reportsApr 2024: 0 reportsMay 2024: 0 reportsJun 2024: 0 reportsJul 2024: 0 reportsAug 2024: 0 reportsSep 2024: 0 reportsOct 2024: 0 reportsNov 2024: 1 reportsDec 2024: 0 reportsJan 2025: 0 reportsFeb 2025: 0 reportsMar 2025: 0 reportsApr 2025: 0 reportsMay 2025: 0 reportsJun 2025: 0 reportsJul 2025: 0 reportsAug 2025: 0 reportsSep 2025: 0 reportsOct 2025: 0 reportsNov 2025: 0 reportsDec 2025: 0 reportsJan 2026: 0 reportsFeb 2026: 0 reportsMar 2026: 0 reportsApr 2026: 0 reportsMay 2026: 0 reportsJun 2026: 0 reportsJul 2026: 0 reportsAug 2026: 0 reportsSep 2026: 0 reportsOct 2026: 0 reports2024202520261
Last 36 months. The most recent month may be incomplete.

Most reported problems

Device problems

  • Difficult or Delayed Separation1
  • Difficult to Fold, Unfold or Collapse1
  • Physical Resistance/Sticking1
  • Premature Separation1

Patient problems

  • No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions2
  • No Consequences Or Impact To Patient1

Recent adverse event reports

The 3 most recent of 3 reports, in the reporter's own words as published by the FDA.

  • MalfunctionNov 11, 2024Premature Separation; Premature Separation

    THE PATIENT WAS UNDERGOING A COIL EMBOLIZATION PROCEDURE IN THE GASTRODUODENAL ARTERY (GDA) USING RUBY COILS AND A LANTERN DELIVERY MICROCATHETER (LANTERN). DURING THE PROCEDURE, THE PHYSICIAN ADVANCED A RUBY COIL INTO THE TARGET LOCATION USING A LANTERN; HOWEVER, THE PHYSICIAN DECIDED TO REMOVE IT AND USE A SHORTER SIZE COIL. THEREFORE, THE RUBY COIL WAS REMOVED. THE PHYSICIAN THEN SUCCESSFULLY IMPLANTED ADDITIONAL RUBY COILS INTO THE TARGET VESSEL USING THE LANTERN. THE PHYSICIAN THEN RE-ADVANCED THE PREVIOUSLY REMOVED RUBY COIL INTO THE TARGET LOCATION USING THE LANTERN. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO RE-POSITION THE RUBY COIL, THE PHYSICIAN NOTICED THAT THE RUBY COIL HAD UNINTENTIONALLY DETACHED WITHIN THE LANTERN. THE PHYSICIAN THEN USED A WIRE TO SUCCESSFULLY PUSH THE RUBY COIL INTO THE TARGET VESSEL. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED USING A NEW RUBY COIL AND THE SAME LANTERN. THERE WAS NO REPORT OF AN ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE PATIENT.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 20653001 ↗
  • MalfunctionJun 21, 2021Difficult to Fold, Unfold or Collapse; Difficult to Fold, Unfold or Collapse

    THE PATIENT WAS UNDERGOING A COIL EMBOLIZATION PROCEDURE IN THE GASTRODUODENAL ARTERY (GDA) USING RUBY COILS AND A NON-PENUMBRA MICROCATHETER. DURING THE PROCEDURE, RESISTANCE WAS ENCOUNTERED WHILE ADVANCING THE FIRST RUBY COIL INTO THE MICROCATHETER. IT WAS ALSO REPORTED THAT THE RUBY COIL WOULD NOT TAKE ITS INTENDED SHAPE DESPITE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS. THEREFORE, THE RUBY COIL WAS REMOVED. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED USING A POD COIL AND THE SAME MICROCATHETER. THERE WAS NO REPORT OF AN ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE PATIENT.

    Patient problems: No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions

    MAUDE report 12037170 ↗
  • MalfunctionJul 10, 2020Physical Resistance/Sticking; Difficult or Delayed Separation; Physical Resistance/Sticking; Difficult or Delayed Separation

    THE PATIENT WAS UNDERGOING A COIL EMBOLIZATION PROCEDURE IN THE DUODENAL ARTERY USING RUBY COILS, A RUBY COIL DETACHMENT HANDLE (HANDLE), AND A LANTERN DELIVERY MICROCATHETER (LANTERN). DURING THE PROCEDURE, THE PHYSICIAN USED THE HANDLE TO IMPLANT ONE RUBY COIL INTO THE TARGET VESSEL. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO DETACH THE NEXT RUBY COIL, THE COIL COULD NOT BE DETACHED USING THE HANDLE NOR COULD IT BE DETACHED MANUALLY. WHILE REMOVING THE RUBY COIL, IT BECAME STUCK INSIDE THE LANTERN AND THE PHYSICIAN REALIZED IT HAD DETACHED. THEREFORE, THE RUBY COIL AND THE LANTERN WERE REMOVED TOGETHER AS A SYSTEM. THE PROCEDURE WAS COMPLETED USING A NEW LANTERN, ADDITIONAL RUBY COILS, AND THE SAME HANDLE. THERE WAS NO REPORT OF AN ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE PATIENT.

    Patient problems: No Consequences Or Impact To Patient

    MAUDE report 10261399 ↗

Other Device, Vascular, For Promoting Embolization devices

All Device, Vascular, For Promoting Embolization devices →

Sources and updates

How reports and recalls are matched · Editorial policy · Report an error on this page